Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. BJ Talk 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The notability is unclear to me. This is a new chess club, and it will host the US Women Championship in 2009, but is that enough to be notable in itself ? Seing the references, there are no independent sources that talk about this club. SyG (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There's a good article on the club here but nothing else to show it's notable outside of St. Louis, as far as I'm aware. Until it actually hosts the Championship, fails WP:NOT. Ottre 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess you mean WP:NOTE for notability rather then WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not?. IF WP:NOT, what part does it fail? As this is a non-profit organisation the relevant notability criteria to meet is WP:ORG. That is turn IMO boils down to having sufficient reliable sources(WP:RS). SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did mean WP:NOTE. In fact, trying to cut down on the abbreviations, would have said cyclopedic rather than WP:NOT. The club should be seen as a precinct. Ottre 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:RS found. http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/16/daily4.html SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. Ottre 11:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? It looks reliable to me... Tavix (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it seems to have gotten some real coverage and to be somewhat notable in St. Louis. Carlo (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question There is a lot of information in this article that seems likely to be unverifiable from third party sources - things like their interior layout and decoration.  If all of that is removed, is there anything notable left? Locke9k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up It seems like the only remaining notable content would be regarding the 2009 women's chess championship. In that case should we just create an article on that instead and delete this one? Locke9k (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*Keep, Notability has been met. They are hosting a national tournament among other things and are mentioned in a couple of reliable sources including the USCF website Tavix (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete per the article's current copyvio status. Tavix (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless further evidence for notability can be established. See Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources."  Also, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."  The articles referenced here are actually articles on the national tournament.  The club is only mentioned as the location of the tournament.  Based on these references, it would be more appropriate to create a page on 2009 U.S. Women’s Chess Championship that could mention this club. Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a lot of the content on this page is just copy/pasted from the club webpage. The article reads more like promotional material than like an article. Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio. Locke9k is correct.  Original source, Terms of use.  A clear case.  Blanking accordingly.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is a clear case for deletion, unless someone comes up with something that is notable AND isn't a copyright violation. Bubba73 (talk), 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyvio. MuZemike 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.